MSM flogging "SEC rulz" meme before games are even over.

As the Gator Bowl crawled to a close, banners proclaiming (admittedly depressing) B-10 v. SEC score sums, comparisons, etc., etc., were already showing.
It feels like all the ESPN hacks have been waiting a year after last year's results to get back to their old tricks.

I'm not sure they understand rules. Or perhaps the Big Ten does not. Whatever the case, there is a massive discrepancy between scholarships/commits/medical redshirts and someone must answer for this. While we're at it, we should investigate having some bowl games in the Midwest. I commonly hear that fans won't travel, but we sell out our stadiums and all of us would be willing to drive a short distance to enjoy a quasi home game.

I'm with you on this. Among the people I meet at church, school and work, there's not much of a proclivity toward complaining about outcomes. You accept the hand you're dealt, play it the best you can, and if you come out on the short end you learn the lessons of loss, regroup, get out of bed the next morning and give it a go again.

But somewhere, someone (outside of ESPN) should reconsider the "SEC rules" theme by asking themselves:

As we know, media promulgation shapes public opinion, and is it possible the relationship between ESPN and the SEC is not merely platonic?

Is it possible the longer layoff B10 teams have historically faced between conference play and the bowl game does have some bearing on bowl outcomes?

Is it possible that B10 teams (by a significant margin), which have to play higher ranked opponents in the bowl games than their SEC counterparts, affects the outcome?

Is it possible that SEC abuse of medical redshirting affects outcomes?

Is it possible that extreme SEC overrecruiting and an inordinate amount of SEC player "dismissals" affects outcomes?

Is it possible that SEC teams playing virtual home games during the bowl season affects outcomes?

And is it possible the "competitive imbalance" between the conferences is blown out of proportion when one considers the historic record?

Monday morning I'll get out of bed and go back to work, like all of us midwesterners do, and won't complain. But anything with SEC in it right now, especially if it has ESPN lips firmly affixed to its hinderparts, really makes me want to retch.

What do we expect? We need to keep our mouths shut and put our house in order. I live in SEC turf and hear it all the time, and there is nothing for me to say as of 1/1/11. But I will bide my time and remember.

And they would be flogging "BT is better than SEC" to death if the BT teams had won all of the games.

Such is the nature of sport. Winners write history; losers ARE history. Next year, when the addition of Nebraska and the projected improvement of Michigan even up the matchups, it could be a different story.

I take three things from today:

1. TCU proved that a smallish defense with speed can defeat a BT powerhouse with the traditional power attack.

2. The matchups were terrible; Michigan proved that a top 50 team at best didn't belong on the field with a top 25 team.

3. Older Big Ten fans might find it somewhat humorous that Wiscy's two most memorable Rose Bowls involved comebacks that came up short, resulting in two Wiscy losses. People who weren't around back then might want to google Ron VanderKelen or 1963 Rose Bowl.